tomas mozer wrote:
>
> must start off by admitting we don't have the "correct" answers to any of
> these questions...
I believe after over 10 years with the mites we have learned about all
we need to know to solve the problem. I believe and have for over twenty
years that man created the varroa problem with his large cell
foundation. At Apis Cerana call size varroa can barely repoduce. At the
size we use today varroa can repoduce at huge rates. If IPM is the
solution for varroa our best beekeeping minds have come up with then
cell size would be first on my list. How long can we afford to ignore
cell size?
> 1. get all our bees on 4.9mm foundation?

> did not at any time imply that this was my recommendation or the "missing
> link", although do believe that appropriate (to the bee strain) combcell
> size may have an effect as reported by ericson et al.'s research at the
> tucson usda lab.

On this point i believe  Erickson,Atmowidjojo, Hines and i agree
completely that cell size should be researched further. I have allready
seen enough of the results of Dee Lusby's research to convince me. I
approached Dadant in 1985 about running the small cell foundation and
they indicated they would if the demand was there for it. Around 1980 i
began following the Varroa problem in Europe. I was amazed that history
repeated itself and we did exactly like they did right down to the
coumaphos. In my book mistakes are ok as long as you learn from and
don't repeat them.
In my opinion we should really think hard about the advice we give New
Zealand. NZ is the perfect to try a different approach. They have got a
world renown group of beekeepers. We did exactly like the european
beekeepers did and ten years later had exactly the same results right
down to coumaphos. Problem is we have never had a 100% varroa control
with approved chemicals. Why not do strickly IPM in NZ and not use any
chemicals? Do the old 1-2-3!
1. small cell size
2. breed from survivors
3. perfect strain from survivors thru selective breeding.
WOULD WE NOT BE IN A BETTER POSITION TODAY IF WE HADN"T TOOK THE EASY
ROAD AND FOLLOWED EUROPE'S EXAMPLE ?

, and would suggest that replacement of contaminated comb
> likewise could be beneficial (ask h.bell about his culled-comb mound in
> deland) albeit something not all beekeepers could afford to do...the
> question is how long can they afford not to?

I never question the things my x partner in bees does as he allways
makes me look like a first year beekeeper later. When H. Bell is talking
I am listening and not talking. Kind of like the old E.F. Hutton
commercial!

I replace quite a bit of comb each year but have been waiting for Dadant
to make good on their word and start production of the old "900"
foundation from the pre 1940's era. I believe cell size is 5.0 mm-5.1mm.

> 2. quit medicating for varroa and raise queens from survivors?
> that's the only way for natural selection to work.

I guess thats why i am such a big supporter of small call foundation. I
can afford to start using the small cell foundation each year instead of
the size available today and over a period of time IPM (in my
opinion)should stop varroa in its tracks like it has at Dee Lusby's.
However i can't afford to stop treating like Dee did and risk
bankruptcy. I wish i could but the last 15 years have been pretty lean
in the bee business!

Maybe "Uncle Sam" would bankroll me for the next ten years while i do
step 2 and then forgive my debt  later like they do with the foriegn
countries?
Those people in congress need to quit sending the beekeeping industry
"get well cards" and send money!

Also i could afford to buy truly resistant queens from the sources out
there if they can prove to me they are truly resistant. With the shape
of the industry today i can'd afford to be wasting money on a dream but
don't mind going out on a limb for a SOLUTION!

Enjoyed your ideas and courage to express your opinions. Refreshing to
hear new ideas. Especially with the developements in NZ.

Bob Harrison U.S.A.